Hi All,
Over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. Part of which was informed by the Community survey, which some of you would have participated in. I will be promoting the report more widely later in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report *here* https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review. One possible space for comments could be here https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Cultural_partnerships/2014_WIR_community_consultation .
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
Otherwise, any broader comments, or further discussion about the programme itself, would be very welcome.
Kind regards, Daria
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'
As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
On 1 July 2014 16:18, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/ARKive_project: the position from the outset was called "Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador". Some semantics to clarify, perhaps.
Charles
Thanks for raising this. I have been focusing on a specific group of residencies, however, it would indeed be useful to mention the project in the background information, which I now have done. I would be happy to discuss in more detail, Andy, do feel free to contact me.
Kind regards, Daria
On 1 July 2014 16:44, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 16:18, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/ARKive_project: the position from the outset was called "Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador". Some semantics to clarify, perhaps.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 1 July 2014 17:07, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I have been focusing on a specific group of residencies, however, it would indeed be useful to mention the project in the background information, which I now have done.
Thank you. The page now reads:
"We have been involved with projects at the British Museum, and the ARKive. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report."
However, the residency at ARKive (not at "the ARKive") also reported to, and had an agreement signed with, WikimediaUK.
Andy,
I get the point that you're making, but the review is of the projects run through the office. I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else, but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 18:38, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:07, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I have been focusing on a specific group of residencies, however, it would indeed be useful to mention the project in the background information, which I now have done.
Thank you. The page now reads:
"We have been involved with projects at the British Museum, and the ARKive. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report."
However, the residency at ARKive (not at "the ARKive") also reported to, and had an agreement signed with, WikimediaUK.
On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
All of you stop this.
Your comments are quibbling unless you have an concrete suggestion for a change to the wording that Daria can use - i.e. new wording that notes these other residences but reflects the fact that they are outside the scope of the report that Daria is writing.
Joe
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 1 July 2014 20:12, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
All of you stop this.
I note your instructions, and will act according to their authority.
Andy, please don't be a tit. On 1 Jul 2014 20:39, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 20:12, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
All of you stop this.
I note your instructions, and will act according to their authority.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Please don't make personal attacks. :-(
Mike
On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:55, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Andy, please don't be a tit.
On 1 Jul 2014 20:39, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 1 July 2014 20:12, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
All of you stop this.
I note your instructions, and will act according to their authority.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
That was not a personal attack. On 1 Jul 2014 21:59, "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Please don't make personal attacks. :-(
Mike
On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:55, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Andy, please don't be a tit.
On 1 Jul 2014 20:39, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 1 July 2014 20:12, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
All of you stop this.
I note your instructions, and will act according to their authority.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 1 July 2014 19:22, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
Hmm, I recall an earlier thread on this list which was pretty much devoted
to contention over how the history of Wikipedians in residence got written. This thread is intended to help a staff member do her job.
It would be a shame, certainly, if WiRs became one of those "don't bring that up again" topics.
Charles
See if this helps any:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
I think this would be more factually accurate: https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
As a general comment: please consider including an executive summary along with a review that is this long. It's very difficult to find the key learning points / statistics here.
Thanks, Mike
On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:49, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
See if this helps any:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
-- Rexx
On 1 July 2014 20:47, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: On 1 July 2014 19:22, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
Hmm, I recall an earlier thread on this list which was pretty much devoted to contention over how the history of Wikipedians in residence got written. This thread is intended to help a staff member do her job.
It would be a shame, certainly, if WiRs became one of those "don't bring that up again" topics.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 1 July 2014 21:57, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I think this would be more factually accurate:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
Maybe. Isn't that the point I asked about on a previous occasion?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-April/012066.html
As you said there, "Some of the history's never been recorded." So, editing it into a report?
You may well think this is more factually accurate, and who knows, you may be right. Does seem to be fighting the battles of a previous war, though, with a source of iffy reliability. Not quite sure who this "proxy war" is against. Frankly, there are reporting requirements on chapters, and so significant matters should be documented.
Charles
On 1 Jul 2014, at 22:11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 21:57, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote: I think this would be more factually accurate: https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
Maybe. Isn't that the point I asked about on a previous occasion?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-April/012066.html
As you said there, "Some of the history's never been recorded." So, editing it into a report?
You may well think this is more factually accurate, and who knows, you may be right. Does seem to be fighting the battles of a previous war, though, with a source of iffy reliability. Not quite sure who this "proxy war" is against. Frankly, there are reporting requirements on chapters, and so significant matters should be documented.
... and that's a good example of why I now have zero motivation to comment on anything that WMUK does nowadays. I should really have said "publicly recorded". I just want to see what actually happened just a few years being properly described. But it feels like a battle to do that - so why should I bother?
(Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...)
Mike
On 1 July 2014 22:22, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 1 Jul 2014, at 22:11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 21:57, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote: I think this would be more factually accurate:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
Maybe. Isn't that the point I asked about on a previous occasion?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-April/012066.html
As you said there, "Some of the history's never been recorded." So,
editing it into a report?
You may well think this is more factually accurate, and who knows, you
may be right. Does seem to be fighting the battles of a previous war, though, with a source of iffy reliability. Not quite sure who this "proxy war" is against. Frankly, there are reporting requirements on chapters, and so significant matters should be documented.
... and that's a good example of why I now have zero motivation to comment on anything that WMUK does nowadays. I should really have said "publicly recorded". I just want to see what actually happened just a few years being properly described. But it feels like a battle to do that - so why should I bother?
Well, the attitude that argument from authority is by itself unconvincing is pretty well entrenched around here.
(Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...)
Not understanding. Mike, if this is for me, please explain offlist.
Charles
I'm very glad to see this - thank you Daria and Chris - this is an important piece of learning for us. :)
I've suggested another form of words for the background section. Will probably supply more comments or questions later!
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I think this would be more factually accurate:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
As a general comment: please consider including an executive summary along with a review that is this long. It's very difficult to find the key learning points / statistics here.
Thanks, Mike
On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:49, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
See if this helps any:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
-- Rexx
On 1 July 2014 20:47, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 1 July 2014 19:22, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
Hmm, I recall an earlier thread on this list which was pretty much
devoted to contention over how the history of Wikipedians in residence got written. This thread is intended to help a staff member do her job.
It would be a shame, certainly, if WiRs became one of those "don't bring
that up again" topics.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 1 July 2014 16:44, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 16:18, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/ARKive_project: the position from the outset was called "Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador". Some semantics to clarify, perhaps.
As you can see from that page, it was described as "a fixed-period in-residence role".
On 1 July 2014 17:15, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/ARKive_project: the position from the outset was called "Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador". Some semantics to clarify, perhaps.
As you can see from that page, it was described as "a fixed-period in-residence role".
Yes, I can see that. I did mean the semantics of "programme", in fact. But
you have Daria's reply.
Charles
Hi all ,
Thank you so much for this posting. I'm also the first ever WiR in the South African Chapter [[WikimediaZA]] and this information is so much helpful to me especially when it comes to reporting and what roles i can play to improve my work with the host institution. This is my 3rd week working with the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation. I'm working on a 4 months contract and though i try by all means to digitize as much documents and pictures as i can however I don't see myself finishing all the work after the 4 months because with each file I open there is a lot of untapped history most of which is not even on the internet otherwise to cut a long story short , one of the hurdles that I've faced is the licensing issue. The Johannesburg Heritage Foundation have chosen to release their material into commons under this license Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which according to my understanding it's not free. I'm interested in knowing under which license are the institutions you've been working with releasing their material under ?
Kind regards Bobby Shabangu WikimediaZA
Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 What does "Attribute this work" mean? The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. View on creativecommons.org Preview by Yahoo
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:45 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'
As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
Dear Bobby,
Non-commercial (NC) means it doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons. For more detail on Commons licensing read this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing.
Non Commercial use is one of the sticking points when talking to potential GLAM partners. Some people have decided on Non-Commercial use because they are a non-commercial organisation and don't see a need to having anything to do with anything commercial, others are happy to release material under a non-commercial license in the expectation of getting commercial revenue from anyone they can argue is commercial. As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned a decision was taken to standardise on not accepting NC licensed files in the early days of the project, and that decision is highly unlikely to change. So this is one of the things to resolve when negotiating a residency, and if an organisation is committed to Non-Commercial use then we need to focus on other things. That doesn't mean we can't have a residency with an organisation that is committed to NC licensing of images. But it would need to focus on other things such as access to archives and training of their volunteers. Of course persuading an organisation to move from NC licensing to a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons can also be a big part of a residency, but there is no point digitising and or sorting out metadata for images until you are confident that they will be licensed sufficiently to go to Commons.
Hope that helps. Happy to talk on Skype or maybe at Wikimania if you want advice as to how to persuade an institution to go for a compatible license with us.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) Organiser/Trefnydd GLAM (Galeriau, Llyfrgelloedd, Archifdai a llawer Mwy!) Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0990
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Press Enter to send your message.
On 1 July 2014 18:51, BOBBY SHABANGU bobbyshabangu@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all ,
Thank you so much for this posting. I'm also the first ever WiR in the South African Chapter [[WikimediaZA]] and this information is so much helpful to me especially when it comes to reporting and what roles i can play to improve my work with the host institution. This is my 3rd week working with the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation. I'm working on a 4 months contract and though i try by all means to digitize as much documents and pictures as i can however I don't see myself finishing all the work after the 4 months because with each file I open there is a lot of untapped history most of which is not even on the internet otherwise to cut a long story short , one of the hurdles that I've faced is the licensing issue. The Johannesburg Heritage Foundation have chosen to release their material into commons under this license Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ which according to my understanding it's not free. I'm interested in knowing under which license are the institutions you've been working with releasing their material under ?
Kind regards Bobby Shabangu WikimediaZA Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ What does "Attribute this work" mean? The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. View on creativecommons.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Preview by Yahoo
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:45 PM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks so much for this explanation it really is helpful and yes of course i would very much like your advice on how to persuade an institution to go for a compatible license with us moreover I would like to concur with Daria on limited contractual time frames for these kinds of projects which turn to be not enough because there will be surfacing issues that one would need to deal with before moving forward. There is certainly a lot i would like to find out really from your side e.g. issues of oral citations, freedom of panorama with regards to buildings that are of historical and heritage significance e.t.c .Unfortunately i was not granted a scholarship to come to Wikimania otherwise my skype name is Bobby.shabangu i would be glad if you can invite me
Kind regards Bobby Shabangu
Wikimediaza On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:26 PM, Jonathan Cardy jonathan.cardy@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Dear Bobby,
Non-commercial (NC) means it doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons. For more detail on Commons licensing read this page.
Non Commercial use is one of the sticking points when talking to potential GLAM partners. Some people have decided on Non-Commercial use because they are a non-commercial organisation and don't see a need to having anything to do with anything commercial, others are happy to release material under a non-commercial license in the expectation of getting commercial revenue from anyone they can argue is commercial. As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned a decision was taken to standardise on not accepting NC licensed files in the early days of the project, and that decision is highly unlikely to change. So this is one of the things to resolve when negotiating a residency, and if an organisation is committed to Non-Commercial use then we need to focus on other things. That doesn't mean we can't have a residency with an organisation that is committed to NC licensing of images. But it would need to focus on other things such as access to archives and training of their volunteers. Of course persuading an organisation to move from NC licensing to a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons can also be a big part of a residency, but there is no point digitising and or sorting out metadata for images until you are confident that they will be licensed sufficiently to go to Commons.
Hope that helps. Happy to talk on Skype or maybe at Wikimania if you want advice as to how to persuade an institution to go for a compatible license with us.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) Organiser/Trefnydd GLAM (Galeriau, Llyfrgelloedd, Archifdai a llawer Mwy!) Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0990
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. Press Enter to send your message.
On 1 July 2014 18:51, BOBBY SHABANGU bobbyshabangu@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all ,
Thank you so much for this posting. I'm also the first ever WiR in the South African Chapter [[WikimediaZA]] and this information is so much helpful to me especially when it comes to reporting and what roles i can play to improve my work with the host institution. This is my 3rd week working with the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation. I'm working on a 4 months contract and though i try by all means to digitize as much documents and pictures as i can however I don't see myself finishing all the work after the 4 months because with each file I open there is a lot of untapped history most of which is not even on the internet otherwise to cut a long story short , one of the hurdles that I've faced is the licensing issue. The Johannesburg Heritage Foundation have chosen to release their material into commons under this license Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which according to my understanding
it's not free. I'm interested in knowing under which license are the institutions you've been working with releasing their material under ?
Kind regards Bobby Shabangu WikimediaZA
Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 What does "Attribute this work" mean? The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. View on creativecommons.org Preview by Yahoo
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:45 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if you have any comments that would require changes of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.
The report states:
'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.'
As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org